update_flow

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It simply says 'Update a single flow' and 'Returns: Confirmation message', without disclosing whether it replaces the entire configuration, whether it's destructive, or any side effects. The mutation behavior is implied but not detailed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact with a clean Args/Returns structure. It has no fluff, but the terseness comes at the cost of missing necessary detail.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with many siblings, the description provides no usage context, no distinction from similar tools, and minimal parameter explanation. The presence of an output schema doesn't compensate for the lack of guidance on when to use this tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema descriptions are empty (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It provides only restatements: 'flow_id: Flow ID' and 'flow_json: Flow configuration as JSON string'. The latter adds that it's JSON, but doesn't explain the expected structure or semantics beyond the type string. This is minimal value.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description states 'Update a single flow' with a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes from the plural sibling 'update_flows' by emphasizing 'single'. However, it doesn't differentiate from 'patch_flow', so it's clear but not fully distinctive.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like patch_flow or update_flows. The 'single flow' wording hints at a batch alternative but doesn't state it. No usage scenarios or prerequisites.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.